I am a European, and I work in health care. And I don't know what a "fully socialized healthcare system" is. Do you mean Beveridge model health care? National Insurance systems?

"Socialized health care" is a term you normally hear from Americans, not anyone who lives in a UHC country. Often followed by paranoid delusions about the government taking over, or not being able to chose your own doctor.

All healthcare systems in the developed world includes a private component. Some nations run UHC entirely on private provision. Everyone gets to chose their own doctor.

I was using the broad term as I am unfamiliar with the nuances of the different types. I knew that they were different, which is why I asked about it in general rather than just Canada/UK/Norway/etc.

Also, I figured that more people would respond to "socialized medicine" rather than listing the different types.

"There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you." -Mazer Rackham - Ender's Game Orson Scott Card

Take the average tax rate in the US. Then add all the things you have to pay for here that you get from your taxes in Denmark.

Starts to look like a pretty good deal imo.

It is a good deal. when you factor in all the numbers it becomes pretty obvious USA isnt getting the best deal possible.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:41 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Laize

That's your opinion. It's clear you think it's your right to have me finance your life.

While I agree there are problems with the US system, they don't lie in the fact that healthcare is privatized, but the cost to the individual. People who smoke, eat McDonald's every day etc etc should pay more for their health insurance than others... the problem comes when those who don't need health insurance (Healthy young people) don't pay into the system voluntarily and, thus, the health insurance pool is spread among the medium-high risk population. There's no low-risk population there to average costs downward.

which is why mandatory public healthcare is only way to go, that way the risk // benefit ratio gets intact so you dont load up the system with only sick people and have people standing on the side lines when they are young and healthy.

Why do people think that large healthcare costs are only about poor lifestyle choices? I've had atrial fibrillation since I was 20, got it from my Grandfather. No poor lifestyle choices here. Also herniated a disc from doing hard manual labor, maybe I shouldn't have been working, that was a poor lifestyle choice.

I never claimed they were.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 07:25 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Dezerte

No national health-care->more unhealthy people->bad for everyone (less people working etc).

And then there's the 'humanist' perspective of things.

I'm not opposing national healthcare per se. The insurance mandate will bring costs down and provide everyone with health care.

My opposition lies in national single payer healthcare. Specifically because then you need the government acting as an actuary and determining who has high-risk behaviors and forcing them to pay more (such as VATs that are quite prevalent in Europe)... which is stupid because it forces people who only indulge in things like McDonald's once in a blue moon to pay extra for something that they shouldn't.

It's like asking people over the Social Security cap to agree to lifting the cap so poor people can retire, when those who pay into it will never actually use the service... or if they do people will bitch about it because the wealthy don't "need" it.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 07:28 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Wells

Take the average tax rate in the US. Then add all the things you have to pay for here that you get from your taxes in Denmark.

Starts to look like a pretty good deal imo.

Denmark also pays twice as much as us for practically everything. Clothing, for example, costs between 50% and 100% more depending on brand.

Just lay it out for me. What would our tax rates need to be in the US to get to where Denmark is? Without sacrificing military spending.

I'm not opposing national healthcare per se. The insurance mandate will bring costs down and provide everyone with health care.

My opposition lies in national single payer healthcare. Specifically because then you need the government acting as an actuary and determining who has high-risk behaviors and forcing them to pay more (such as VATs that are quite prevalent in Europe)... which is stupid because it forces people who only indulge in things like McDonald's once in a blue moon to pay extra for something that they shouldn't.

newsflash: it isn't working. the mandate has only brought prices up. Everyone I work with says their healthcare costs have gone up at least 20%. They are paying more for the same or less coverage.

easy,it's all free!(apart from stuff like plastic surgeries or luxuries that do not relate directly to one's health),the quality of medical services is good too,the only problem is that if you're not an emergency case it might take a while because of the great work load of the hospitals

the point is that you're going to leave healthy and not poorer

ofc we pay taxes for it,so what? we all use it,we all pay for it,and i'm a very healthy person,yet i gladly pay,it's my duty to say the least

only a selfish asshole would choose otherwise,having people suffering from diseases that can be cured because they cannot afford the cure is primitive and inhuman,not worthy of a western democracy,THIS is what seperates us from the 3rd world and not the fucking i-pads

only a selfish asshole would choose otherwise,having people suffering from diseases that can be cured because they cannot afford the cure is primitive and inhuman,not worthy of a western democracy,THIS is what seperates us from the 3rd world and not the fucking i-pads

It's not "free". The difference between the systems is not whether you pay or not it is just who pays and how much. To have an honest discussion about healthcare you really at least have to start from that basic idea.

Money can afford to keep people alive and in good health with very serious diseases. Drugs sometimes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to keep people alive. The way you are putting your statement bypasses any real discussion to be had. Socialized medicine does not include spending any amount of money to keep anyone alive for as long as possible.

It's not "free". The difference between the systems is not whether you pay or not it is just who pays and how much. To have an honest discussion about healthcare you really at least have to start from that basic idea.

Money can afford to keep people alive and in good health with very serious diseases. Drugs sometimes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to keep people alive. The way you are putting your statement bypasses any real discussion to be had. Socialized medicine does not include spending any amount of money to keep anyone alive for as long as possible.

It does, actually; because prescription medication is so cheap under socialized systems, it means that people can actually afford to go on long term medication that would keep them alive and healthy.

Elaborate, because the way I'm reading that is...once you hit X amount of dollars of support...they just let you die.

Procedures and drugs still have to be paid for. If you're Magic Johnson and you are diagnosed with HIV several years ago you stay in the United States to pay for whatever care you can afford. You don't go to public sector healthcare in England or Canada where the decision is made for you about what you can afford as a country. Decisions for cost effective care still need to be made in countries with socialized medicine. The treatments that are covered aren't necessarily the best treatments for any disorder regardless of the cost.

Procedures and drugs still have to be paid for. If you're Magic Johnson and you are diagnosed with HIV several years ago you stay in the United States to pay for whatever care you can afford. You don't go to public sector healthcare in England or Canada where the decision is made for you about what you can afford as a country. Decisions for cost effective care still need to be made in countries with socialized medicine. The treatments that are covered aren't necessarily the best treatments for any disorder regardless of the cost.

Yeah...it's the same treatments here, idk if you're aware of that. Drugs and equipment costs significantly less since the government has all the leverage in terms of purchasing. There is no "death panels" or quota based care...I don't even know where you would come up with something that ridiculous.

Procedures and drugs still have to be paid for. If you're Magic Johnson and you are diagnosed with HIV several years ago you stay in the United States to pay for whatever care you can afford. You don't go to public sector healthcare in England or Canada where the decision is made for you about what you can afford as a country. Decisions for cost effective care still need to be made in countries with socialized medicine. The treatments that are covered aren't necessarily the best treatments for any disorder regardless of the cost.

As opposed to places like the US where you can't afford any treatment, period. That's just so much better, right?

You'll find that in most countries with socialized healthcare the quality of treatments does not actually vary that significantly for the average user, and does not vary at all when it comes to medication.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 03:23 PM ----------

Originally Posted by TradewindNQ

Yeah...it's the same treatments here, idk if you're aware of that. Drugs and equipment costs significantly less since the government has all the leverage in terms of purchasing. There is no "death panels" or quota based care...I don't even know where you would come up with something that ridiculous.

I am actually flabbergasted that there are people who believe that shit.

I used to be, but then I came to the United States. Insurance companies pay a veritable mint to perpetuate scare tactics and keep the opposition to a single-payer system alive and well; the triumph of the capitalist model, obviously.

People try to convince me of the same thing. I just tell them that my grandmother in Australia has had both knees and a hip replaced and paid -nothing-, and was able to get each replacement done within six months of the diagnosis.

No kidding, my grandmother back in the UK had a similar incident. Broke her hip. Had it replaced within the same week. That's pretty amazing imo, between admittance, measurement, fabrication and surgery.